From my limited knowledge of such things, I’m pretty confident in stating that the MG 42 was, in fact, a fine weapon - very reliable and almost unsurpassed in its ability to deliver sustained high rates of fire. All that said, could it still be around and in use? Or, is what’s shown in the picture just a copy of an MG 42, or maybe even a similar looking gun?
The Bundeswehr used the MG3, may still have it in second-line service. The Pakistani army uses or has used the MG3. The Italian army also has used it, though I don’t believe it is still in front-line service. They used a heavier bolt, though, to slow its high rate of fire.
The original drawings and specs for the MG42 were never found at the end of WW2. The MG3 was reverse engineered from the weapons themselves. Rate of fire increased slightly from the original. It is indeed a fine weapon. The one in the photo appears to a Bundeswehr type, but can’t say for sure.
I’ve heard the MG42 be referred to as “Hitler’s buzzsaw”, due literally to the fact that it fired so fast you couldn’t make out any individual bullet sounds.
I would say it is an MG3, based on the muzzle booster (no visible holes like that on original MG42 or Yugoslav M53) and bipod attachment midway down the barrel, an option on the MG3 (and M53) whereas on original MG42 the bipod only attached near the muzzle. But as already mentioned, the MG3 and MG42 are close relatives (the MG3 is a developed 7.62mm NATO version of the postwar 7.92mm MG1, which in turn was reversed engineered by the Germans from still existing MG42’s, for which complete design drawings no longer existed). Many MG42’s still exist, in the hands of collectors, and perhaps criminal or terror groups, but AFAIK it’s used by few if any organized military forces now. The MG3 is still used by many armies.
Trouble is, they are nearly indistinguishable between them and WW II examples remain working and in public hands… The examples the police show are not proved to be working machine guns. They may be manual one shot only.
Well the butt of the one in the police photo looks like a WW II original,because of the valleys in the side, making the hook /finger grip part of the butt more of a hook.
I have read about these in casual WWII reading, and always wondered if there is any real value to 1200 rounds per minute. It seems to me that you’re burning through a lot of ammunition and reloading more frequently, and for what? Either you’re off target, and pumping 1200 RPM into the dirt, or you’re on target and pumping 1199 rounds into a dead body.
I get the idea of things like suppression and laying down a line of fire, but it seems to me that would be just as effective at 1/4 the rate, and far more cost effective.
I also suspect the high ROF also came in handy when shooting at harder targets than people, such as trucks, half-tracks, light tanks… Shoot at it enough, some bullets are bound to punch through and/or find a viewport.
You’re not kidding about the hassle though : MG-42 gunners needed not only to reload all the time (it could be belt-fed, but still), but to change barrels after just a few minutes of sustained firing. Which could be done quickly, per design, but still.
In his book on the MG34 and 42, Folke Myrvang produces several first hand accounts of veterans who didn’t like the MG42 compared to the MG34 (which had still high cyclic rate by other countries’ standards, around 900rpm) for that reason. It was that much more ammunition to lug forward, or run out of, in difficult Eastern Front conditions.
The official US position was also that the MG42 fired too fast, though this has been re-interpreted by some as just happy talk to calm the nerves of US soldiers going up against a much faster firing mg than their own (US M1919 fired at less than 600rpm). However when the US Army developed the M60 mg after WWII using concepts from the MG42 and the unrelated FG42 automatic rifle, it deliberately decided on a cyclic rate of still only around 600rpm.
And almost all other ground mg’s fire slower, as some postwar MG42 clones do also. The gun in the picture again appears to be an MG3, recognized by the bipod attachment half down the barrel and the muzzle booster shape. MG3’s fire a little slower than MG42’s, around 1100 rpm. The Italian 7.62 NATO version (MG42/59) has a heavier bolt and fires at around 900rpm.
Wasn’t the US M60 machine gun based on the MG42? I thought I remembered reading or seeing that somewhere. Assuming my notoriously faulty memory is correct (never a good bet), then that is still in use I believe, though it’s been supplanted by the SAW as the primary squad machine gun. I think the SEALS(?) still use them, and maybe the Marine Corps.
As above, the M60 uses certain ideas of the MG42 and the unrelated German FG42 paratrooper automatic rifle, but the end product was not closely related to the MG42. For one basic thing it’s gas operated like the FG42 (and like most post WWII light/medium mg’s), not recoil operated like the MG42. The M60 is on its way out in US service but there are still some around (on USCG and USN ship mounts for example you still see them sometimes) in US service and elsewhere.